Mathia Lee ~ Plans and Preoccupations

HIV is LIKELY to go undetected or misdiagnosed – So how?

Posted in Sexuality, Social Commentary by mathialee on January 25, 2009

Have you ever been tested for HIV when you went to see your GP for a cold or flu?

 

My bet is No, even though the typical, early symptoms of HIV are almost EXACTLY the same as a bad cold/flu –  high fever, aching joints, swollen lymph nodes, bad cough etc.

 

So think about it. If you were never tested for HIV when you went to see your doctor for a flu, what makes you think that HIV infected people will be correctly diagnosed at that early stage? Wouldn’t they be misdiagnosed for a flu?

 

That’s exactly what happens.

 

“In 2006, more than half (58%) of the new cases already had late-stage HIV infection when they were diagnosed. This was similar to the pattern in previous years……

Most of the new cases in 2006 (78%) had their HIV detected when they had HIV testing in the course of some form of medical care. A much smaller proportion were detected as a result of voluntary HIV screening (13%). The rest were detected through contact tracing and other screening. When differentiated by sexual orientation, a higher proportion of homosexuals had their HIV infection detected via voluntary screening compared to heterosexuals (35% vs 3%).”

http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/currentissues.aspx?id=16114

 

Which really means that, whenever you decide to engage in sex with anyone, the best thing you can do for yourself  is to assume that the person is HIV positive, and use a condom — which is 99% effective if you use it CORRECTLY, and 100% of the time.

 

 

In the meantime, these statistics provide a very good argument for automatic, opt-out testing. The government initiative to test all male patients coming into Singapore’s public hospitals, regardless of the illness they came in for, can address this very high rate of misdiagnosis. The number of undiagnosed HIV cases are thought to be about 2x the numbe of diagnosed cases.  The idea of automatic testing is not to ostrocise or to “doom” these HIV victims — the idea is to reduce the spread with early detection, and to get treatment to prolong life.

 

Why is it only restricted to men? Because HIV tests have an inherrant error rate (that’s just the technology limitation), and the HIV infection rates for women are still low enough that it is hard to distiguish the error rate from the real positives, so it is not that helpful as a screening measure for women.

 

While from a public health perspective, automatic HIV testing is an effective detection measure, the social consequence would be the increased stigma attached to being HIV positive.  This is something we cannot ignore, because HIV infected people have a right to be treated with dignity — and that includes the right to keeping their status confidential, their right to treatment, their right to doing all activities that would not result in the further spread of HIV.

 

Moving forward from Obama’s “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”, we need to make sure we have strategies that both enhance our health safety as a population, and safeguard the rights of HIV infected people, which they fully deserve. This is fully possible if we want to achieve it, and we have to consciously reject as false any assertion that we have to choose between our public health and human rights.

 

So auto-testing would enhance our health safety as a population, and enable the HIV patients to start treatment early to prolong their life and enhance their quality of life. I think Singapore got that right

 

It’s the second part that we need to make sure is in place — and recognise that achieving our ideals of according HIV patients the rights they deserve, need not compromise our health safety at all.

 

What needs to be in place ? This is a non-exhaustive list which would be nice if readers could add on to.

 

The State’s to-do list:

 

1. Affordable treatment .

Affordable not only in the sense that the patients can pay for it, but affordable in the sense that after paying for the treatment, they can still afford to have a normal life — to still be able to pay for their utilities, mortgages, children’s education , even a holiday or two. They should not be enslaved by the cost

 

2. Accessible treatment of high quality

Treatment that is accessible and affordable should not just be the basic, Third-world, scrapping by type of treatment. In should be in line with the country’s philosophy of having First-world, world-class, health care.

 

3. Enforced, laws (not guidelines) preventing discrimination at the workplace

HIV CANNOT spread through working together (unless you’re in the unprotected-sex trade/ having unprotected sex with your colleagues). In the same way that the government took concrete action against the discrimination of pregnant women, similar action has to be taken against workplace discrimination.

 

4. Laws protecting confidentiality

Patients have the right to confidentiality. When this confidentiality is breached, patients should be able to sue the violating parties. In bringing on these lawsuits, patients should have provisions to protect their confidentiality during the legal proceedings, similar to how rape victims are protected during legal proceedings

 

5. Laws protecting against discrimination

Patients should be able to sue organisations that practice discrimination, similar to the way we can, if we are discriminated based on race / religion etc unnecessarily. This is slightly different from workplace discrimination –which has to be enforced more strongly because it is their means of livelihood. Here, we want to enforced their rights to be treated without discrimination by country clubs, associations, schools,  media portrayals etc

 

6. Family members of HIV patients have to be protected under the same laws, as those above.

 

7.  Have a long-term public education programme against discrimination against people living with HIV

Public education should go beyond stopping the spread of HIV, but should to decrease discrimination amongst those affected. In campaigns for safer sex, other groups of people should not be discriminated against, eg. homosexuals , women (notice how ads always portray women as the agents of infection? women are forced into either categories of being a slut or being a virtuous wife — another false dichotomy). Governmet bodies need not be the ones running these programmes ; they can provide funding to diverse groups who can conduct these campaigns from all the different perspectives

 

 

 

We, the Peoples, to-do list

 

1. Make friends with people with HIV — we will then learn that they are as human, as good, and as bad as we are

 

2. Learn more about what living with HIV is like

 

3. Speak up whenever discriminatory words/acts are observed

 

4. If you are in the position of power eg. as a policy maker, as a HR manager, as a journalist — exercise your power responsibily

 

5. Spread the message

 

 

13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Softmat said, on January 25, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    “Have you ever been tested for HIV when you went to see your GP for a cold or flu?”

    you lost me there.
    And tl;dr

  2. www.plwha.org said, on January 25, 2009 at 10:40 pm

    just discovered a site for hiv+ travelers: http://www.plwha.org
    tips,medication and everything else you need to know
    very useful

  3. mathialee said, on January 26, 2009 at 12:40 am

    Hmmm Softmat, let me try that line again.

    “when you kenna flu,and you go see doctor, the doctor ever got give you blood test, check see whether you got HIV or nor har?”

    If he never test you see got HIV or not, then confirm he also never test those people who really got HIV lah! Then those people who really got HIV won’t know they got, then they will go round and spread lah!

    = p

  4. Hackett said, on January 26, 2009 at 1:34 am

    It is always a good idea to use a condom, which are 99% effective but offer no protection when performing oral sex. I think everyone seems to forget that in America (and other places) oral sex is extremely popular.

  5. Softmat said, on January 27, 2009 at 9:56 am

    Let’s try the second line then.

    “(..) typical, early symptoms of HIV are almost EXACTLY the same as a bad cold/flu – high fever, aching joints, swollen lymph nodes, bad cough etc.”

    Well, it is also typical for zillion of other things including hangover. It would be ridiculous to ask people to be tested for all the possible diseases, which may display such symptoms.

    Oh, and there is Obama:

    “(…) we have to consciously reject as false any assertion that we have to choose between our public health and human rights.”

    Anybody really ask you to do so?

  6. mathialee said, on January 27, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    Softmat, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Thanks for this opportunity to reiterate my point.

    Because it is unfeasible for doctors to test for all the possibilities, given the common nature of these symptoms, it is very likely for HIV to go undiagnosed. I wouldn’t exactly call it malpractice, again for the reason you brought up, too.

    Which is why, my point is, ” whenever you decide to engage in sex with anyone, the best thing you can do for yourself is to assume that the person is HIV positive, and use a condom — which is 99% effective if you use it CORRECTLY, and 100% of the time.”

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

    “we have to consciously reject as false any assertion that we have to choose between our public health and human rights.” Anybody really ask me to do so?

    If you listen to the implied (or maybe some would call it overt) message from our MOH, or what ever committees have been set up to tackle HIV in Singapore, we have been told that the laws violating the human rights of people living with HIV is necessary to safeguard our public health.

    Do the laws we have on automatic HIV testing, and the laws we have criminalising risky sex (NOT the conscious transmission of HIV, but just risky sex) violate human rights? Just google this issue, too many people/organisations have already commented on it and I will not repeat them all here.

    What is our justification for those laws? Google the issue.

    Actually my article aimed to provide a very brief overview on this 2 issues, but in its brevity, i might have been unclear.

    What I am proposing, are human right safegaurds that ought to be in place with the above 2 public health measures, so that we can achieve both our public health safety, and our human rights ideals. And we should begin by changing the mindset our administration tries to assert.

    Thanks, Softmat, for raising this question, and giving me the chance to elaborate , because I am sure many have that question in their heads too.

  7. softmat said, on January 28, 2009 at 11:40 am

    ” whenever you decide to engage in sex with anyone, the best thing you can do for yourself is to assume that the person is HIV positive, and use a condom — which is 99% effective if you use it CORRECTLY, and 100% of the time.”

    Yeah, why not. This counts also for all other STDs, VDs, and STIs, which wreck no less havok.

    “So auto-testing would enhance our health safety as a population, and enable the HIV patients to start treatment early to prolong their life and enhance their quality of life. I think Singapore got that right”

    If this is so simple, answer these seemingly simple questions: “why HIV and not other diseases?”, “who will pay for that?”, “will you have to tell the results to the patient if he turns out to be HIV-negative?”, “would you tell the results to his/her spouse knowing that they have sex like rabbits everyday?”

    It is quite disturbing that you would equate antidiscrimantory regulations of HIV carriers and pregant women. Pregnancy is not a disease; AIDS is.

  8. mathialee said, on January 29, 2009 at 3:29 am

    ” whenever you decide to engage in sex with anyone, the best thing you can do for yourself is to assume that the person is HIV positive, and use a condom — which is 99% effective if you use it CORRECTLY, and 100% of the time.”

    Yeah, why not. This counts also for all other STDs, VDs, and STIs, which wreck no less havok.

    ==> Everyone, Hear hear. Softmat is SO right here.

    Softmat :

    “If this is so simple, ” — It’s not simple, but that does not mean it is unimportant, nor does it give us an excuse to put in any less effort.

    “why HIV and not other diseases?” — This priciple/ practice should be applied to any other fatal, infectious disease for which prevention methods are available.

    “who will pay for that?” — The HIV test is cheap. At this moment, I believe (i could be wrong here, someone correct me) it is paid by the patient, since there is the “choice” of opting out. But I could be wrong. It could be a State borne cost. Since it is a public health measure for the collective good, I would support it being tax-funded.

    Who will pay for non-discriminatory practices? The same people who pay for non-discriminatory practices against race, language or religion

    “will you have to tell the results to the patient if he turns out to be HIV-negative?” — Yes, and I believe that is being done. Again, correct me if I’m wrong. Or perhaps, for feasibility, no news is good news.

    “would you tell the results to his/her spouse knowing that they have sex like rabbits everyday?” — If you were having sex like rabbits with your spouse everyday, and given that if 100 people gave sex with a HIV+ person, only 12 -13 would get it (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15090833), would you want to know if your spouse has HIV?

    If that’s not YOU, but that’s your daughter or mother or father or son we’re talking about, would you want them to know their spouse has HIV?

    “It is quite disturbing that you would equate antidiscrimantory regulations of HIV carriers and pregant women. Pregnancy is not a disease; AIDS is.”

    2 things I need to say here –

    First, I would equate antidiscrimanatory regulations of HIV carriers with that of pregnant women, old folks, muslims, christians, buddhists, hindhus, athiest, malays, chinese , bangladeshis etc etc

    Second, When you make a differentiation between Preganancy and AIDS this way, you are essentially giving them less dignity, when in actual fact, to the Employers, both states are economically undesirable, and to the people around, both states cannot be transmitted (unless you sleep with your colleagues/are in the sex trade).

    Often times, what I notice is that amongst teenage girls, and people who discriminate against unwed mothers, pregnancy is treated like a disease.

    And often times, amongst healthy HIV carriers, they are dying for AIDS to be treated as just another unwanted condition, not a disease.

    I guess we have to ask, what is a disease? (and i’m not defining it in medical terms)

  9. softmat said, on January 29, 2009 at 9:06 am

    “This priciple/ practice should be applied to any other fatal, infectious disease for which prevention methods are available.”

    This is unrealsitic.

    “it is a public health measure for the collective good”

    I honestly don’t see were this “collective good” would come from? You are getting vey close to eugenics. It was also a public health measure for the collective good.

    “Who will pay for non-discriminatory practices? The same people who pay for non-discriminatory practices against race, language or religion”

    So, again, who will pay for this?

    “If you were having sex like rabbits with your spouse everyday, and given that if 100 people gave sex with a HIV+ person, only 12 -13 would get it, would you want to know if your spouse has HIV?” “If that’s not YOU, but that’s your daughter or mother or father or son we’re talking about, would you want them to know their spouse has HIV?”

    You didn’t answer the question, I’m afraid. What you propose is clearly not about me or about the person infected with HIV. You propose some regulations which will be imposed on GPs and other doctors. You better tell me what you propose that they will be obliged to do with the information they will get from the test. So, would you force them to tell the result to the patient’s spouses or othe rmmeber of the family? Shoudl the school be informed if it is a minor?

    “I would equate antidiscrimanatory regulations of HIV carriers with that of pregnant women, old folks, muslims, christians, buddhists, hindhus, athiest, malays, chinese , bangladeshis etc etc”

    Would HIV infected persons be able to be butchers, or dentists? Woudl you allow a HIV infected person to be an open heart surgeon? Becasue if you allow provisions then you fail at what you want to achieve.

    Oh come on, you don’t need definitions to know that AIDS is not just an “unwanted condition”. What a strange euphemism that is!

    Nobody is giving less dignity to anyone here. You started with an idea of compulsory, no-opt-out, no-provisions regulation which is hard to defend without invoking some kind of public health,public good or imposed self-control. This is were you are at odds with what you call human rights.

  10. [...] Vía | Mathia Lee [...]

  11. mathialee said, on February 1, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    Just curious, Softmat, What is your proposed alternative?

  12. CM said, on February 19, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    Funz… I actually agree with all the points by softmat.

    Mathia, some dilemma you have… kekeke.
    Whenever you go into “compulsory, no-opt-out, no-provisions regulations”, it usually goes against human rights (which I’m very curious what kind of definition you use for human rights, especially in connection to your proposed idea).

    I say, trash the human rights, go draconian. Everybody go for compulsory testing the first time round, and then test again every 5 years. In between the 5 years period, people can opt for testing if they feel they may be “contaminated”. They must declare if they have HIV before the 5th year testing, otherwise they kena jia-lat jia-lat (i.e. draconian capital punishment).
    Alternatively, we can do the worldwide quarantine idea I proposed elsewhere in this blog.

    Seriously, I think there is no other proposed alternative that will not violate human rights, and I don’t think Softmat is going to foolishly put the neck on the chopping block and propose some lame alternative.

    By the way, I remember that HIV testing was automatically carried out on my wife when she was pregnant. I can’t remember whether it was first visit to gynae or at the point she gave birth or some time in between.

  13. mathialee said, on February 20, 2009 at 1:17 am

    Pregnant women have to be tested as early as possible, because there are drugs that can prevent the mother-child transmission, and you need to take it BEFORE you transmit


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: